The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opening of a rowdy sheet and surveillance by the police must be justified by extraordinary circumstances to enforce peace and tranquility, and it should be minimal and non-obtrusive, considering the infringement of the right to life, liberty, and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. The facts as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that the petitioner claims to be the permanent resident of Kushaiguda, Kapra village and running cloth shop near Kushaiguda Bus Stop. Mr. Kasula Nandam is the protected tenant and in possession of land to an extent Acs. 6.32 guntas in Sy. No. 170 of Kapra village, having obtained occupancy rights certificate in the year 1979. Said Kasuma Nandam appointed the petitioner as General Power of Attorney holder to look after the said property. According to the petitioner, there are several bogus claimants over the said land based on fabricated documents. Earlier rival claim was made by M/s. Bhavana Rishi Welfare Association. They instituted O.S. No. 1013/2002 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 upholding the claim of petitioner's principal. A.S. No. 194 of 2011 filed by the said association is pending consideration of this Court. Petitioner alleges that person, who is making false claim on the above extent of land, lodged several complaints against him over a period of time. In all the complaints, which are registered against the petitioner and facing prosecution, pertain to very same land. On the ground of registration of crimes, and pending trial before the criminal Courts, rowdy sheet is opened and in the guise of opening of rowdy sheet, respondent-Police are keeping close surveillance on the movements of the petitioner, affecting his right, liberty and privacy. Petitioner assails the said decision of the respondent-Police in opening the rowdy sheet.

3. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, all the crimes registered against the petitioner pertain to the land disputes and they are all false claims generated by rival claimants to knock away the property. The rowdy sheet is opened at the instance of rival claimants only to harass and humiliate him. There is no application of mind by the Police before opening the rowdy sheet and their action in opening rowdy sheet amounts to abuse of process of law. Merely because certain crimes are registered, which mostly relate to the allegation of criminal trespass by the rival claimants, petitioner cannot be classified as habitual offender necessitating opening of rowdy sheet. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Puttagunta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police and Others, 1998 (3) ALT 55.

4. From the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is seen that so far seven crimes are registered against the petitioner since the year 2017. Out of this, in five crimes, he is facing trial and two crimes are pending at the stage of collection of evidence.

5. In view of the registration of said crimes, on 07.10.2020 rowdy sheet was opened in Kushaiguda Police Station. According to the respondent-Police, there is ample evidence adduced during the course of investigation alleging that petitioner is grabbing private and Government lands by way of illegal means, that due to fear of the petitioner, no one is coming forward to lodge fresh complaint. Thus, in view of the public interest and to safeguard the residents of the area, where petitioner is residing, and to curb his unlawful activities, rowdy sheet is opened. In support of their decision to open rowdy sheet reliance is placed on Police Standing Order 601.

6. Supporting the averments in the counter-affidavit and the decision to open rowdy sheet, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that unless a close monitoring is undertaken against the petitioner, there is every possibility of committing more crimes. He would submit that the crimes registered under various provisions of IPC reflect criminal mind of petitioner. Even though crimes relate to landed pro